Sunday, 26 June 2016

Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe

“..if
a special geometry has to be invented in order to account for a falling apple,
even Newton might be appalled at the complications which would ensue when
really difficult problems are tackled.”

— Sir Oliver Lodge, FRS, 1921. [1]

Credit: London Science Museum.

Gravity is
the most familiar force.
We are subject to it every day of our lives. Newton gave us his ‘law of
gravity,’ which describes its effect but doesn’t explain it. “I frame no
hypotheses,” he wrote. Einstein wasn’t so prudent when he introduced his
“postulates.” Unfortunately, his unreal geometry doesn’t explain gravity
either. The usual demonstration using heavy steel balls on a rubber sheet to represent
‘gravity wells’ relies on gravity as its own explanation!

The fact
that we do not understand gravity in this space age should cause alarm. Our
cosmology — our view of our situation in the universe — is based on a mystery!
The ‘big bang’ is a monumentally expensive work of fiction.

Some
History

We missed a
chance to include electricity in astronomy in the early 1900s. Birkeland was
performing his electrical ‘little Earth,’ or Terrella, experiments in Norway,
and Gauss and Weber were discovering the electrical interactions of matter.
Today, physicists labour under misconceptions about the nature of matter and
space; the relationship between matter, mass and gravity; the electrical nature
of stars[2] and galaxies;
and the size, history and age of the universe. So when astrophysicists turn to
particle physicists to solve their intractable problems and particle physicists
use it as an excuse for squandering billions of dollars on futile experiments,
neither party recognizes that the other discipline is in a parlous state.

“After all,
to get the whole universe totally wrong in the face of clear evidence for over
75 years merits monumental embarrassment and should induce a modicum of
humility.” [3]

“The
Standard Model of particle physics would appear to fail in nearly every
possible way, and all of its failures seem to stem from the early 1930s. By all
indications science seems to have taken a wrong turn about this time. After
three hundred years of progressively simplifying the description of the
universe, with fewer entities and simpler laws, it suddenly turned the other way,
with complexity and entities multiplying like rabbits.” [4]

“We are about
to enter the 21st century but our understanding of the origin of inertia, mass,
and gravitation still remains what has been for centuries – an outstanding
puzzle.” [5]

How has this
situation arisen? In the 20th century technology perfected wireless communication
and computers and got man into space, while fundamental science fell deeper
into a ‘black hole’ of complication, illogicality and metaphysics. I consider
the principal cause has been the usurping, since Einstein, of natural
philosophy and physics by theoretical mathematicians. Meanwhile Einstein,
perhaps to his credit, remained sceptical of his own work.[6,7]

I have
always found it instructive to read what past luminaries of science thought of
a radically new idea. The free exchange of opposing opinions is later stifled
by the bandwagon effect. Science, like all human endeavours, is subject to fads
and fallacies.

Caricature of Sir Oliver Lodge (June 12, 1851 – August
22, 1940).

When controversy
was still tolerated over Einstein’s theories, Sir Oliver Lodge, a noted Fellow
of the Royal Society, wrote in Nature on Feb 17, 1921:

“..what is
really wanted for a truly Natural Philosophy is a supplement to Newtonian
mechanics, expressed in terms of the medium which he suspected and sought after
but could not attain, and introducing the additional facts, chiefly electrical—especially the fact
of variable inertia—discovered since his time…

If we could
understand the structure of the particle, in terms of the medium of which it is
composed, and if we knew the structure of the rest of the medium also, so as to
account for the potential stress at every point—that would be a splendid step,
beyond anything accomplished yet.” [8][Emphasis added]

This is precisely
the Electric Universe view. Natural Philosophy has withered in its
confrontation with the modern fashion of mathematical metaphysics and computer
games. Most of the ‘discoveries’ now are merely computer generated ‘virtual
reality’ — black holes, dark matter, dark energy, etc. The computer models are
constructed upon a shadowy kernel of ignorance. We do not understand gravity!

Einstein in
his special theory of relativity postulated there was no medium, called the
‘aether.’ But Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism requires it. And Sir Oliver
Lodge saw the aether as crucial to our understanding. So Einstein, at a stroke,
removed any possibility that he, or his followers, would find a link between
electromagnetism and gravity. It served the egos of his followers to consecrate
Einstein’s ideas and treat dissent as blasphemy.

“Sometimes a concept is baffling
not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”[9,10]

Decades
later, Paul R. Heyl wrote in Scientific Monthly, May 1954:

“The more we
study gravitation, the more there grows upon us the feeling that there is
something peculiarly fundamental about this phenomenon to a degree that is
unequalled among other natural phenomena. Its independence of the factors that
affect other phenomena and its dependence only upon mass and distance suggest
that its roots avoid things superficial and go down deep into the unseen, to
the very essence of matter and space.”

—Gravitation: Still
A Mystery.

This
sentiment has been echoed down to the present but few are listening. The
problem has been worsened by the particle physicists who indulge in their own
virtual reality — inventing “virtual particles” to transmit forces. If they “could understand the structure of the
particle, in terms of the medium of which it is composed” and put
flesh on the metaphysical bones of quantum theory we should be much further
advanced. Sir Oliver Lodge deserves to be heard once more:

“..it may be
that when the structure of an electron is understood, we shall see that an
‘even-powered’ stress in the surrounding aether is necessarily involved. What I
do feel instinctively is that this is the direction for discovery, and what is
needed is something internal and intrinsic, and that all attempts to explain
gravitation as due to the action of some external agency, whether flying
particles or impinging waves, are doomed to failure; for all these speculations
regard the atom as a foreign substance — a sort of ‘grit’ in the aether —
driven hither and thither by forces alien to itself. When, some day, we
understand the real relation between matter and aether, I venture to predict
that we shall perceive something more satisfying than that.”[11]

Electric
Gravity

In 1850,
Faraday performed experiments trying to link gravity with electromagnetism that
were unsuccessful.
However, his conviction remained:

“The long
and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent,
having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one
fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing,
by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could
exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.”[12]

Faraday’s
estimate of the importance of such a connection still stands. Today, there are
a number of scholars pursuing this obvious line of inquiry. After all, the
electrical and gravitational forces share fundamental characteristics—they both
diminish with the inverse square of the distance; they are both proportional to
the product of the interacting masses or charges; and both forces act along the
line between them.

Matter
and mass

Gravity acts
in proportion to the mass of an object. What do we mean when we refer to the ‘mass’
of an object? “One
of the most astonishing features of the history of physics is the confusion
which surrounds the definition of the key term in dynamics, mass.”[13]
Early in the 20th century numerous textbooks equated the mass of an object to
its weight. That equation led to confusion because it doesn’t explain why the
mass of an object we measure on a weighing machine (gravitational mass) is
identical to the mass of that object when we push it (inertial mass).

When it was
found that atoms are composed of charged particles, there were attempts to
explain mass in terms of electromagnetism. Henri Poincaré wrote in 1914, “What we call mass would
seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic
origin.” It makes good sense that the equivalence of gravitational
and inertial mass should be explained by the electrical structure of matter.
However, it is not the philosophical concept of mass but its mathematical
treatment that occupies physicists. Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2,
demonstrated that mass and electromagnetic energy are directly related. But
mystification resulted when the earlier concept that related mass to ‘quantity
of matter’ was unconsciously substituted. Textbooks and encyclopaedias today
slip unnoticeably into the error of using the words ‘mass’ and ‘matter’
interchangeably. A NASA educational website tells us that “mass is a measure of how
much matter a planet is made of.” It shows that the confusion of
mass with quantity of matter infects astrophysics.

The
consequences are profound for cosmology. The
mass of a celestial body cannot tell us about its composition. We
cannot say what the Sun is made from! Another example is comet nuclei, which
are electrically charged bodies. They register masses that should have them
constructed like an empty sponge yet they look like solid rock. It is their
appearance, together with the recently recovered high-temperature minerals
(rock particles) from a comet, that give the accurate picture. Comets and
asteroids are fragments of planets. They are not primordial—quite the reverse,
in fact.

This
inexcusable philosophical muddle over matter and mass has given rise to
violation of the fundamental physics principle of no creation or annihilation of matter.
It has allowed a miraculous cosmological creation story to gain currency, known
as the ‘big bang.’ [14] Notions of ‘vacuum energy’ and of
particles ‘winking in and out of existence’ in the vacuum of space are
similarly miraculous. The simple fact is that we have no concept of why matter
manifests with mass.

But when we
apply force to a body, how is that force transferred to overcome inertia? The
answer is ‘electrically’ by the repulsion between the outer electrons in the
atoms closest to the points of contact. The equivalence of inertial and gravitational
mass strongly suggests that the force of gravity is a manifestation of the
electric force.

The
origin of mass in the electrical nature of matter.

Ralph Sansbury in New York.

Without
accepting his model in its entirety, I consider Ralph Sansbury’s
straightforward electrical theory of magnetism and gravity[15] to
have conceptual merit. Simply stated, all subatomic particles, including the electron,
are resonant systems of orbiting smaller electric charges of opposite polarity
that sum to the charge on that particle. These smaller electric charges he
calls ‘subtrons.’ This is the kind of simplification of particle physics
required by Ockham’s razor and philosophically agreeable, though it leaves
unanswered the real nature and origin of the subtrons. In this model, the
electron cannot be treated like a fundamental, point-like particle. It must
have structure to have angular momentum and a preferred magnetic orientation,
known vaguely as ‘spin.’ There must be orbital motion of subtrons within the electron
to generate a magnetic dipole. The transfer of energy between the subtrons in
their orbits within the classical electron radius must be resonant and near instantaneous for the
electron to be a stable particle. The same argument applies to the proton, the
neutron, and, as we shall see —the neutrino.

This model
satisfies Einstein’s view that there must be some lower level of structure in
matter to cause resonant quantum effects. It is ironic that such a model
requires the electric force between the charges to operate incomparably faster
than the speed of light in order that the electron remain a coherent particle.
It means that Einstein’s special theory of relativity, that prohibits
signalling faster than light, must be repealed. A recent experiment verifies this.

Electromagnetic
waves are far too slow to be the only means of signalling in an immense
universe.
Gravity requires the near-instantaneous character of the electric force to form
stable systems like our solar system and spiral galaxies. Gravitationally, the
Earth ‘sees’ the Sun where it is this instant, not where it was more than 8
minutes ago. Newton’s famous law of gravity does not refer to time.

We must have
a workable concept of the structure of matter that satisfies the observation
that the inertial and gravitational masses of an object are equivalent. When we
accelerate electrons or protons in an electromagnetic field they become less
responsive to the fields the more they are accelerated. This has been
interpreted as an increase in particle mass, which is unhelpful until we
understand the origin of mass. If the charged subtrons have little intrinsic
mass, how do they, in combination, give the electron, proton and neutron the
property of mass?

An electric
field will transversely squash the subtron orbits within an electron or proton.
If you cause acceleration at one point in a circular orbit and a deceleration
at the diametrically opposite point of the orbit, the result is an elliptical
orbit. In the case of an accelerated particle, the orbit will tend to flatten
in the direction of the applied force. It seems that as more energy is supplied
to accelerate the particle, the more that energy is assimilated inelastically
in further distortion rather than in acceleration. In other words, the electric
force becomes less and less effective at acceleration, which Einstein would
have us interpret as an increase in mass. For comparison, Weber’s classical
approach to the problem has “a decrease in the electrical force and not a change in the inertial
mass.”[16] This model implies that the charge
centres of a proton at rest are more separated than those in an electron at
rest. That allows the proton to distort more readily than an electron in the
same electric field and may account for their classical differences in size and
mass. “The
advantage of this interpretation of the conversion of mass into energy and vice
versa is that we are not forced to accept the increase of mass to infinity as a
moving mass approaches the speed of light.”[17]

What
is gravity?

Gravity is
due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons,
neutrons and electrons. [18]
The force between any two aligned electrostatic dipoles varies inversely as the
fourth power of the distance between them and the combined force of similarly
aligned electrostatic dipoles over a given surface is squared. The result is
that the dipole-dipole force, which varies inversely as the fourth power
between co-linear dipoles, becomes the familiar inverse square force of gravity
for extended bodies. The gravitational and inertial response of matter can be
seen to be due to an identical cause. The puzzling extreme weakness of gravity
(one thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion times less than the
electrostatic force) is a measure of the minute distortion of subatomic
particles in a gravitational field.

Celestial
bodies are born electrically polarized from a plasma z-pinch or by core
expulsion from a larger body.

The
2,000-fold difference in mass of the proton and neutron in the nucleus versus
the electron means that gravity will maintain charge polarization by offsetting
the nucleus within each atom (as shown). The mass of a body is an electrical
variable—just like a proton in a particle accelerator. Therefore, the so-called
gravitational constant—‘G’ with the peculiar dimension [L]3/[M][T]2,
is a variable! That is why ‘G’ is so difficult to pin down.

Antigravity?

Conducting
metals will shield electric fields. However, the lack of movement of electrons
in response to gravity explains why we cannot shield against gravity by simply
standing on a metal sheet. As an electrical engineer wrote, “we [don’t] have to worry
about gravity affecting the electrons inside the wire leading to our coffee
pot.”[19] If gravity is an electric dipole force
between subatomic particles, it is clear that the force “daisy chains” through
matter regardless of whether it is conducting or non-conducting. Sansbury
explains:

“..electrostatic
dipoles within all atomic nuclei are very small but all have a common
orientation. Hence their effect on a conductive piece of metal is less to pull
the free electrons in the metal to one side toward the center of the earth but
to equally attract the similarly oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the
nuclei and free electrons of the conductive piece of metal.”[20]

This offers
a clue to the reported ‘gravity shielding’ effects of a spinning,
superconducting disk.[21] Electrons in a superconductor exhibit a ‘connectedness,’
which means that their inertia is increased. Anything that interferes with the
ability of the subatomic particles within the spinning disk to align their
gravitationally induced dipoles with those of the earth will exhibit
antigravity effects.

Despite a
number of experiments demonstrating antigravity effects, no one has been able
to convince scientists attached to general relativity that they have been able
to modify gravity. This seems to be a case of turning a blind eye to unwelcome
evidence. Support for antigravity implicitly undermines Einstein’s theory.[22]

‘Instantaneous’
gravity

A
significant fact, usually overlooked, is that Newton’s law of gravity does not
involve time.
This raises problems for any conventional application of electromagnetic theory
to the gravitational force between two bodies in space, since electromagnetic
signals are restricted to the speed of light. Gravity must act instantly for
the planets to orbit the Sun in a stable fashion. If the Earth were attracted
to where the Sun appears in the sky, it would be orbiting a largely empty space
because the Sun moves on in the 8.3 minutes it takes for sunlight to reach the
Earth. If gravity operated at the speed of light all planets would experience a
torque that would sling them out of the solar system in a few thousand years.
Clearly, that doesn’t happen. This supports the view that the electric force
operates at a near infinite speed on our cosmic scale, as it must inside the
electron.[23] It is a significant simplification of all of the
tortuous theorizing that has gone into the nature of gravity and mass.
Einstein’s postulates are wrong. Matter has no effect on empty space. Space is
three-dimensional—something our senses tell us. There is a universal clock so
time travel and variable aging is impossible—something that commonsense has
always told us. But most important—the universe is connected and coherent.

The
real nature of light

However, it
leaves the question of what the speed of light means. This is where I
part company with Sansbury and others who explain it in terms of a delayed
response to an instantaneous signal. In my view, the crucial difference between
the near-infinite speed of the electric force and the relative dawdle of light
on any cosmic scale is that the electric force is longitudinal while light is
an oscillating transverse signal moving slowly through a medium.

If I can use
a simple analogy, light travels slowly like the transverse ripples on a pond
surface; gravity travels swiftly and longitudinally, like the speed of sound in
water. Once again, this is at odds with Einstein’s metaphysics because it
reinstates Maxwell’s aether: Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory requires a
medium. How can you wave nothing?

The
Michelson-Morley basement experiment was heralded as having lain to rest the
notion of an aether. It didn’t.[24]Dayton Miller carried out far more rigorous repeats of that
experiment at different locations and elevations. He found a residual,
which allowed him to conclude that ponderable bodies like the Earth drag the
aether with them. He was able to determine the relative motion of the solar
system with respect to the aether.

Dayton Miller (left) with Irving Michelson (right).
Credit: Case WRU Archives. “Miller’s work on ether drift was clearly undertaken
with more precision, care and diligence than any other researcher who took up
the question, including Michelson, and yet, his work has basically been written
out of the history of science.”

Others and I
have argued that a plenum of neutrinos forms the aether.[25] Based
upon nuclear experiments, I have also proposed that neutrinos are the most
collapsed, lowest energy state of matter. In other words they exhibit
vanishingly small mass. However, being normal matter composed of subtrons, they
are capable of forming electric dipoles. In an oscillating electromagnetic
field a neutrino must rotate through 360˚ per cycle. That would link the speed
of light in a vacuum to the moment of inertia of a neutrino. Having some mass,
neutrinos must be ‘dragged along’ by gravitating bodies. They form a kind of
extended ‘atmosphere’ which will bend light. It has nothing to do with a
metaphysical ‘warping of space.’

The
Electric Universe

The
confusion about any role for electricity in celestial dynamics has come about
because of our ignorance
of the electrical nature of matter and of gravity. The classical signposts to
an understanding of gravity were in place at the beginning of the 20th century,
but after the terrible world wars it seems people were looking for heroes with
a new vision. Einstein became an overnight idol of genius and his geometric
metaphysics the new fashion in science. The dedication to the Einstein myth has
become so entrenched that to say “the emperor has no clothes” invites ridicule.
But over almost a century there has been an astronomical price to pay for
unquestioning adherence to dogma. A recent review of the history of astronomy
concludes,

“The
inability of researchers to rid themselves of earlier ideas led to centuries of
stagnation. An incredible series of deliberate oversights, indefensible verbal
evasions, myopia, and plain pig-headedness characterize the pedestrian progress
along this elusive road for science. We must be constantly on our guard,
critically examining all the hidden assumptions in our work.”[26]

Since
scientists have demonstrated their inability to do this, the public must be
made aware how science actually operates and is protected from scrutiny. It
will require the kind of fearless investigative journalism we often see in
politics. Unfortunately, science reporters are part of the problem if they bow
to the expert and the lazy dissemination of academic propaganda.

Ultimately
cosmology must have no loose ends. The electric universe model is an attempt to
connect many strands of knowledge. “Proposals that eventually pan out in the world are far more likely
to exhibit narrative consistency – perhaps what Edward O. Wilson calls
‘consilience’ in his book of that name.”[27]“The goal of consilience is
to achieve progressive unification of all strands of knowledge in service to
the indefinite betterment of the human condition.”[28]

No matter
that there is an avalanche of books and papers supporting big bang
cosmology—repetition provides no assurance that one particular interpretation
of results is valid. “Assurance of interpretation can come only by comparing
the success of competing hypotheses in interpreting data from disparate areas.”[29]
Big bang cosmology fails this test because it brooks no competition.

For example,
plasma
cosmology is officially recognized by the largest professional organization
in the world, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE),
while big bang cosmologists ignore it. The electric universe model is an
extension of plasma cosmology. It is based on concepts derived from
observations as disparate as petroglyphs and quasar redshift. Big bang
cosmologists have no narrative that can compete. But by the simple act of
ignoring alternatives they reject them—if the public simply acquiesce and do
not speak up.

-Wal
Thornhill

[This
news item is shortened and modified from a presentation
given in Cambridge, England, in September 2007. Endnotes are therefore
included.]

REFERENCES

[1] Sir
Oliver Lodge, F.R.S., The
Geometrisation of Physics, and its supposed Basis on the Michelson-Morley
Experiment. Nature, Feb 17, 1921, p. 797.
[2] W. Thornhill, The
Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars, IEEE
Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 35, No. 4, August 2007, pp. 832-844.
[3] Halton Arp, What has
Science Come to?, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No.
3, 2000, pp. 447–454.
[4] D. L. Hotson, Dirac’s
Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy, Infinite Energy, issue 43,
2002, p. 4. It was noted by H. C. Dudley in Smithsonian, Vol. 5, No. 7, October
1974, that, “Dirac advised a
group of U.S. physicists to stop looking for more and more particles and direct
their efforts elsewhere.”
[5] Vesselin Petkov, Did
20th century physics have the means to reveal the nature of inertia and
gravitation?, arXiv:physics/0012025v3, 17 Dec 2000.
[6] Albert Einstein, “You
can imagine that I look back on my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But from
nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am
convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general
on the right track.” Personal Letter to Professor Solovine, dated
28 March 1949. Quoted in B. Hoffman, Albert
Einstein-Creator and Rebel (N.Y.: Viking Press, 1972).
[7] Lee Smolin, Einstein’s Lonely
Path, DISCOVER 30/9/2004, “Special
relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein
had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it. He had
rejected his theory, even before most physicists had come to accept it.”discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/einsteins-lonely-path/
[8] Sir Oliver Lodge, op.
cit., p. 799.
[9] Edward O. Wilson, The
Biological Basis of Morality, The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 281, No.
4, April 1998, pp. 53-70.
[10] Stephen J. Crothers, A
Brief History of Black Holes, Progress in Physics, Vol. 2, April
2006, pp. 54-7. See online atwww.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html“Einstein ..did not
understand the basic geometry of his gravitational field. Other theoreticians
obtained the black hole from Einstein’s equations by way of arguments that
Einstein always objected to. But Einstein was over-ruled by his less cautious
colleagues, who also failed to understand the geometry of Einstein’s
gravitational field.”
[11] Oliver Lodge, University of Birmingham, March 25, 1911. Letters to the
Editor, Nature, Volume 87, March 30, 1911.
[12] M. Faraday, Experimental
researches in electricity, Vol. 3. Dover Publications Inc., New
York, 1965, pp 161-168.
[13] G. Burniston Brown, Gravitational
and Inertial Mass, American Journal of Physics 28, 475 (1960).
[14] Mike Disney, The Case
against Cosmology, General Relativity and Gravitation, 32, 1125,
2000. “The most unhealthy
aspect of cosmology is its unspoken parallel with religion. Both deal with big
but probably unanswerable questions. The rapt audience, the media exposure, the
big book-sale, tempt priests and rogues, as well as the gullible, like no other
subject in science.”
[15] mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/
[16] A. K. T. Assis’ and R. A. Clemente, The
Ultimate Speed Implied by Theories of Weber’s Type, Int. J.
Theoretical Physics. Vol. 31, No. 6, 1063-73 (1992).
[17] R. Sansbury, The Infinite or Finite Speed of Gravity and Light?, CP
Institute, N.Y., 1994, p. 123.
[18] R. Sansbury, The Common
Cause of Gravity and Magnetism, p 1. Seewww.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/news96_f.html
[19] D. E. Scott, The
Electric Sky: A Challenge to the Myths of Modern Astronomy, Mikamar
Publishing, 2006, p. 73.
[20] R. Sansbury, op. cit.,
p.15.
[21] E. Podkletnov, Weak
gravitation shielding properties of composite bulk Y Ba2Cu3O7-x superconductor
below 70 K under e.m. field,arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9701074v3
[22] Boemer, Examples of
Suppression in Science, “Mainstream
physics also thinks that it can dismiss anti-gravity and gravity shielding
experiments, using circular reasoning rivaling that of fundamentalist theology:
since no experiment has ever contradicted general relativity, general
relativity must be true, and anti-gravity and gravity shielding effects cannot
possibly be real, since they would contradict general relativity.”
[23] T. Van Flandern, The
Speed of Gravity – Repeal of the Speed Limit, Meta Research, On the
basis of 6 experiments the lower limit for the speed of gravity is 2×1010
c.
[24] R. T. Cahill, The
Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005—A Critical Review of the Evidence, “There is a detectable local frame of
reference or ‘space,’ and the solar system has a large observed galactic
velocity of some 420±30km/s in the direction (RA=5.2hr, Dec= -67deg) through
this space.”
[25] See for example, H. C. Dudley, Is
there an ether? Industrial Research, Nov 15, 1974, pp. 43-6.
[26] Simon Mitton, reviewing The
Milky Way by Stanley L. Jaki, New Scientist, 5 July 1973, p. 38.
[27] W. Paschelles, New Scientist, 13 January 2007, pp. 18-19.
[28] Charles C. Gillispie, E.
O. Wilson’s Consilience: A Noble, Unifying Vision, Grandly Expressed,
American Scientist, May-June 1998.
[29] J. A. Hewitt, A Habit
of Lies, Chapter 2; Scientific Logic and Method.

We provide
a live link to your original material on your site (and links via social
networking services) - which raises your ranking on search engines and helps
spread your info further!

This site
is published under Creative Commons (Attribution) CopyRIGHT (unless an
individual article or other item is declared otherwise by the copyright
holder). Reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged - if you
give attribution to the work & author and include all links in the original
(along with this or a similar notice).

Feel free
to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you
never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember
attribution!

If you
like what you see, please send a donation (no amount is too small or too large)
or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Live long
and prosper! Together we can create the best of all possible worlds…

1 comment:

Space, Energy, Mass/ The universe is made of one kind of entity.There are two states of being: expanded and contracted.Standing momentum forward, standing momentum inward. An entity must be inone state or the other at any given instant. It must sustain either state at will.Expanded entitites are space. They are permeable, they offer no impedance to each other. A contracted entity is mass. Mass entities are not permeable. They are anti-space. All energy is the appearance of entities when constantly changing from space to mass, mass to space, without resting in either state.There is one fundamental physical interaction between entities, Space Propels Mass. It is the propulsive effect of space on mass that we know as the force of gravity. All other relations & systems are built on this interaction. Energy is never as conscious as space, nor as unconcious as mass. We say that matter is drawn to the center of the planet by gravity. The pressure of space on mass insures that in time every entity will move to the vicinity of others with the same time-lengths in state.Space, Mass, or Energy. Simple laws can easily build complex systems, but complex laws would have an impossible labor to create the predictions of physics and geometry.A mass entity alone will not move, since it is surrounded by space equally. when 2 or more entities are contracted, they will be propelled toward each other, since there is less propulsive effect. If an entity stays contracted long enough it will be pushed together with other mass. The larger the gathering of mass, the less counter-active space propulsion there is at the center, as supported by the equivalence of the formulas for acceleration and gravity. The expansive momentum of space entities is 2c. Since energy is expanded half the time, its waves move at velocity c.The universe is a field of space (any number of space entities) which maintains a constant and uniform pressure on any contracted entities. The pattern of space-energy-mass relations can be applied in modified form to any local context, gas-liquid-solid, vaporized-fluid-frozen. The force of gravity depends on the amount of mass. The only real force in the universe is that space propels mass, this does not give space (unimpeded consciousness entities) the power to control energy & mass in any specific way. The propulsion is uniform & identical everywhere-it is what we now think of the force of gravity. Space merely pushes away any contracted entities. Mass moves toward other mass because that is always the direction in which there is less space, less propulsion. The more mass entites are pushed together, the more intense the pressure, not because space is pushing harder, but merely because there is no counter-propulsion at the center of a gathering of mass."Love and Pain" by Thaddeus Golas

Follow New Illuminati on Twitter

SUBSCRIBE to the NEW ILLUMINATI YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Contact Us

Welcome to the new Enlightenment, an era when suppressed science, hidden history and the enlightening nature of reality are all revealed to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

These are the thoughts and ideas of New Illuminati - bold forerunners and pioneers of new awareness all over the globe.

Notes on new emerging paradigms from the NEXUS New Times Magazine Founder R. Ayana, who lives in a remote Australian rainforest (and is no longer involved with the magazine) - Catching drops from the deluge in a paper cup since 1984.

§ 107.Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright – reproduction for non-profit use is OK. Awesome Inc. theme. Powered by Blogger.

Claimer

All opinions, facts, debates and conjectures xpressed herein are xtrusions of macrocosmic consciousness into your field of awareness. The New Illuminati are not to be held responsible or accountable for flashes of insight, epiphany, curiosity, transformation or enlightenment experienced by any person, human or otherwise.